First, just let me say that my simple blog posts here do not do Eve Shapiro's book, Gender Circuits, justice. But it seems I often find one or two points in these text quite interesting and usually end up focusing there. On the plus side, perhaps this makes you, the reader, curious enough about the book to read it for yourself.
Tonight I finished Chapter 1, "A Social History of Technology and Gender," which concluded with the case study "Bloomers and Nineteenth-Century Womanhood." I will conclude with the case study, as I found it very interesting, but first, I'll discuss a little bit about the second half of the chapter. It focuses primarily on gender non-conformity as well as on how new technologies often make way for new genders. When it comes to non-conformity, Shapiro points out that "Western societies have not offered third (let alone fourth or fifth) gender options, many other societies have, and some still do" (66). She goes on to argue that "some cultures not only accommodate these alternate genders but also see them as legitimate ways of being, powerful and important to the society at large" (66). But of course the Western world has never been able to come to terms with this, and instead, uses these types of differences to try to somehow prove it is better than these other societies.
Shapiro also discusses how new technologies, such as advances in medicine, help to bring about new genders and new gender scripts. And this leads me to the case study and to the answer of who slaughtered the "angel in the house" (a phrase popularized by Coventry Patmore's Poem by that title in 1854). Before I point a direct finger at that notorious murderer, let me just first explain that Shapiro sheds light on this crime by pointing out many changes were taking place in the Victorian era. We had the industrial revolution, and with it came the sewing machine, and with that came the ability to make clothes quicker. Eventually came the ability to mass produce clothing, which lead to being able to offer them to a much wider populace than ever before. Also during this time women were beginning to demand more rights, including the right to work, vote, and even have leadership abilities right along side of men. There was also the fact that period clothing hinders women from most physical activities, including that of riding a bicycle (something that had become quite popular).
Therefore, women were demanding the right to wear pants, or as they were called, bloomers.This was outlandish and Shapiro points out that "many suggested that bloomers (and the bicycle riding that they were affiliated with) 'destroys the health of women, and unfits them for the important and sacred duties of motherhood'" (84). Of course, the corset that women were required to wear did WONDERS for her health, but I digress. The person ultimately (apparently) responsible for the death of the "angel in the house" is Elizabeth Smith Miller, the woman responsible for designing the first pair of women's pants in 1851 (85). There you have it. That first pair of pants was the downfall of the angel from her throne (Thank God).
It is late, so I bid you goodnight.
Tonight I finished Chapter 1, "A Social History of Technology and Gender," which concluded with the case study "Bloomers and Nineteenth-Century Womanhood." I will conclude with the case study, as I found it very interesting, but first, I'll discuss a little bit about the second half of the chapter. It focuses primarily on gender non-conformity as well as on how new technologies often make way for new genders. When it comes to non-conformity, Shapiro points out that "Western societies have not offered third (let alone fourth or fifth) gender options, many other societies have, and some still do" (66). She goes on to argue that "some cultures not only accommodate these alternate genders but also see them as legitimate ways of being, powerful and important to the society at large" (66). But of course the Western world has never been able to come to terms with this, and instead, uses these types of differences to try to somehow prove it is better than these other societies.
Shapiro also discusses how new technologies, such as advances in medicine, help to bring about new genders and new gender scripts. And this leads me to the case study and to the answer of who slaughtered the "angel in the house" (a phrase popularized by Coventry Patmore's Poem by that title in 1854). Before I point a direct finger at that notorious murderer, let me just first explain that Shapiro sheds light on this crime by pointing out many changes were taking place in the Victorian era. We had the industrial revolution, and with it came the sewing machine, and with that came the ability to make clothes quicker. Eventually came the ability to mass produce clothing, which lead to being able to offer them to a much wider populace than ever before. Also during this time women were beginning to demand more rights, including the right to work, vote, and even have leadership abilities right along side of men. There was also the fact that period clothing hinders women from most physical activities, including that of riding a bicycle (something that had become quite popular).
Therefore, women were demanding the right to wear pants, or as they were called, bloomers.This was outlandish and Shapiro points out that "many suggested that bloomers (and the bicycle riding that they were affiliated with) 'destroys the health of women, and unfits them for the important and sacred duties of motherhood'" (84). Of course, the corset that women were required to wear did WONDERS for her health, but I digress. The person ultimately (apparently) responsible for the death of the "angel in the house" is Elizabeth Smith Miller, the woman responsible for designing the first pair of women's pants in 1851 (85). There you have it. That first pair of pants was the downfall of the angel from her throne (Thank God).
It is late, so I bid you goodnight.
RSS Feed
